Redstate

1. We could find a stockpile of VX, smallpox, nuke warheads, etc. in Baghdad tomorrow, and the left would STILL oppose this military action.  
   
2.  Bob Kerrey will NEVER be nominated by the Dems.  NO WAY!!!  He is too pro-military.  John Kerry was on record as an outspoken critic of the military.  He got a pass.  Bob Kerrey could end up as a running mate, but the base would never elect him.

I think it took about two decades for most of America's Depression Era communists and leftists to decide that Joe Stalin wasn't really worth defending anymore.

The modern Anti-War-Left's defense of the pre-2001 status quo in Iraq will probably be about the same. The new documents won't sway them, no matter what they reveal. If Iraq's mass graves didn't turn them into war supporters, documents won't.

I have never understood why the Bush Admin gave up so easy on trying to show that Iraq already had or was trying to produce WMDs.  And that many of these weapons were sent out of Iraq prior to the long run-up to Iraq War II.

If the Bush Admin doesn't want to make the case themselves, then why not cite publicy Stephen Hayes articles in the Weekly Standard.  Of course many opponents of the war will say the Weekly Standard supported the war, so what do you expect. However, it will force many of the opponents to actually read the articles and refute them.  Then they won't be able to refute them so it will change the nature of the disussion and public opinion may again swing back to Bush on the war.

I need to go back and do some research but my recollection is pretty clear that Kerrey was front and center in 9/11 Commission CYA activities with Gorelick and Benvenista.  I believe that he had this information then, but since it wasn't public he could play political games with the commission report rather than present the unvarnished truth.  

It is only now that this information is available to the public that he states the obvious implication of this "new" data.  I do note that he chose to be on the record explaining that there is no link between Saddam adn 9/11 knocking down a strawman of the Democrat's own making!

He is just the first rat off a sinking ship.  

The New York Sun has, in its past, been the Lucy to willing Conservative's Charlie Brown.  Just be careful going for the field goal on this one.  

You seem to be under the assumption that I'm trying to prove something.  I'm not; I'm being a really swell guy and giving a head's-up about a problem.  You want to ignore it, that's all you.

Bob Kerrey did on C-SPAN with one of the Republican 9/11 commissioners (I forget who) and he actually admitted that every politician has to get with the partisan talking points program. That said, I think it was a mistake for the Democrats to push him away since 1992, even with the Thanh Phong incident being a vulnerability in any presidential run. America might be very different if he had been the Democrat nominee instead of Bill Clinton. Even when Debra Winger moved into the governor's mansion with him in Nebraska, he never lied under oath about his love life.

The problem of those pesky Democrats and their hypocrisy.  Gotcha.  

First, please be a little less inclusive when referring to the Democrats.  My mother is a Democrat, and a very nice person.

Second, the problem - which apparently you missed - is not about hypocrisy; the problem is about the fact that the Democratic Party will not survive in the long term as the antiwar party.  If you wish to claim that the leaders of the Democrats are flirting with the antiwar movement for reasons other than principle (I'm guessing that's where your hypocrisy thing is coming from), well, I might agree with that, but it's irrelevant to the written point.

Here's a very, very good rule of thumb when dealing with my posts, flyerhawk.  Assume that when you see X on the screen, I meant to type out X.  Do not assume that I instead meant to type out Y, and certainly do not act as if Y was anything except your own interpetation.  If you are unsure of anything that I write - or you look at something and say, "Did he really mean to call for all furniture salesmen to be thrown into volcanos?" - ask me politely for a clarification.

Thanks in advance for your compliance in this matter.

...defended at least two known traitors, Alger Hiss and Harry Dexter White, for decades after their guilt was acknowledged despite the failure of Hiss' case against Whittaker Chambers. The only reason for Democrats' defense of Hiss and White was the fact that Richard M. Nixon, a Republican they hated, was the man originally responsible for bringing about the embarrassing revelations of NKVD penetration of the Roosevelt and Truman Administrations.

Similarly, the fact that the Pajamas Media documents are painting a more complete picture of Saddam's nuclear ambitions and a picture of a Saddam who had a closer involvement with AQ than has been acknowledged will have no effect on liberal Democrats. Their hatred of Bush is too pronounced for Democrats to actually consider national security issues first.

The Administration's fecklessness in the defense of its original war aims is where the true fault lies, however. We return to the issue of White House communications strategy-which is infantile at best, criminally negligent at worst. Here are papers, and tapes in Saddam's own words, which paint a canvas of a man and his regime who intended to return to the WMD business once sanctions were off. The Democrats and their lickspittles in the media show no signs of having lighting issued unto them on that road to Damascus. They have too much of a political and a psychological investment in a personal hatred of George Bush to ever change. For them, he is the New Nixon, and Democrats would ignore and indeed excuse the crimes of a fascist mass killer just to see Bush driven from office.

There is a reason the primary issue among Democrats right now is impeachment of George W. Bush, not prosecution of the war on terror. There is only so much they can hide from the people, however. Ken Mehlman's letter to the base voters indicates to me that we are about to round on Democrats and make them pay for their fanaticism. That will be all to the good.

I had a few too many drinks watching the Big East and was a bit too petulant with my comments.

Obviously I was referring to the Big East CHOKING yesterday.

suspect that, as their leadership is currently constituted, they never will. Which is both a shame and a caution. A shame, because the Democratic Party will not survive in the long term as the antiwar party (yes, yes, the polls are currently telling some of you differently, I'm sure that was a comfort on 11/03/2004); a caution, because the GOP isn't magically immune to the problem, either. We could be in this place in a few years.

So what should the Democrats do then?  Begin to support the policies of the current Administration?   Even if we were to assume that the current policies are completely correct, how exactly do the Democrat's come back off the ledge on this without completely destroying whatever legitimacy they may have?  

I certainly agree that the Democrats need to find better footing on their positions regarding the War in Iraq but to simply support the war and the Administration's policies would be political suicide.   Right or wrong the Republicans are perceived as the War Party and the Democrats are perceived as the Anti-War Party.   Simply vacillating now would make them look like the Anti-War Party with no integrity.

So what should the Democrats do then?  Begin to support the policies of the current Administration?

Yes.

I don't follow the sport, which apparently makes me unique around here...  :)

Then they wouldn't be the opposition party would they?  

It's difficult to believe that the Democratic Party is doomed UNLESS they become the Republican Party.

Although former Democrat Senator Bob Kerrey is making a lot of sense, I disagree with Jeff Goldstein's commenter, and believe that most elected Democrats WILL "throw Kerrey to the wolves" because he is a FORMER Senator, not a current Senator, as is Lieberman. What have Democrats done to other reasonable former Senators like Zell Miller and John Breaux?

If the word gets out to the general public that there WAS a connection between Saddam and Al-Qaeda, the whole "BushLied" meme will fall flat on its face, Bush's Job Approval will climb back above 50%, and Democrats will be running scared in 2006. So they will do everything possible to suppress this story.

Which is the best reason for us to get it out as quickly and thoroughly as possible.

"Then they wouldn't be the opposition party would they?"

Flyerhawk: the Democratic Party is wrong when it embraces the antiwar position.  On every level from the strategic to the ethical.  So they need to stop that.  I'm sure that they can find some other way to oppose the Republicans that doesn't involve their total moral degradation.

"It's difficult to believe that the Democratic Party is doomed UNLESS they become the Republican Party."

(pause)

And this is my problem how?

in my idea for winning the midterms: shortly before the election, a televised Presidential speech extols the tradition of breathing in and out in a regular fashion.

Moral degradation?  Pretty heated language.  

So you think that there is no "moral" way to oppose the war and subsequent occupation of Iraq?   You don't think that a person could view the killing of 30,000 innocent people in Iraq, not to mention a few thousand American soldiers, to be an immoral act, particularly if you feel that the motives were morally wrong?

I'm not suggest that opposing this war is the morally just position.  But I fail to see how demonizing your philosophical opponents achieves anything.  It entrenches the sides and instead of looking for a middle ground both sides become more Balkanized.  They become MORE self-righteous and MORE judgemental and distrustful of the opposition.

Republicans do not have a monopoly on morality, no matter what people here may believe.

Honestly I didn't expect such polar views from you, Moe.

And this is my problem how?

I don't know.  You started a thread about how the Democratic Party is facing certain doom ahead because of their anti-war position.  Does your argument really boil down to "Well the Republicans are right and the Democrats need to get on board or face extinction?"  

Senators that decide to stump at the opposition party National convention are rarely viewed positively by their party.  

Zell Miller is reasonable.  That's good one.  

Because the Republicans are right on this issue, and the Democrats do need to get on board or face extinction.

Sorry if this is news.

I can't argue with that logic.  Once you reach the "I'm right.  You're wrong" part of a discussion it is obvious that there is not much left to say.

Or a discussion.  What we're having is a demonstration of your apparent inability to grok a very straightforward blog post.  Oh, and a series of increasingly-explicit statements on the utter contempt in which I hold the antiwar movement; that might have been an interesting revelation, except that it was hardly a secret.